Replies

I didn't figure the A-bomb testing. Great point. You covered the tree ring calibration. but concerning the c14/c12 ratios I noticed that the quote I used was from the 70's. That is when Fairhill and Young were doing their research. How does that jive with DeVries?,/i>
On the C14/C12 ratios, that appears to be natural. Fluctuations on the order of 1% appear when the tree-ring comparison is made.
This was found, if I recall, by de Vries by comparing historically known samples with radiocarbon dates. Once the tree-ring calibration was developed, the ages matched.
I am not sure of the method used by Fairhill and Young; I have not examined their paper. If they were just using the beginning and end points of their range, they might have been using ratios affected by nuclear bombs for the end points, giving an artificially inflated slope.

Check into it and let me know what you find.

Wow. The whole A bomb testing has me really racking my brain. I'm scribbling notes left and right to google tomorrow.

Did you do any uranium dating also? I have questions about that relating to closed system assumption, initial quantity assumptions and super nova explosions (in nearby stars) related to cosmic radiation.

I'll look through my notes for the AZ question. I have been reorganizing and become, unorganized. I've added about 40-70 pages of notes a day of various parallel evo/creation/ID topics over the last couple weeks and have gotten a chance to read most of it, but not cataloged it.

See you tomorrow, time permitting.